scope_help

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a return-format specification, which is useful. It does not describe deeper behavioral traits such as whether lookups are local, cached, or network-dependent, but for a read-only help tool the annotation plus return format is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured, with a short purpose statement, a return-format block, and three representative examples. Every sentence earns its place and the most actionable information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only help tool with a fully documented schema, the description is largely complete: it gives the return format, examples for key operations, and an overview of the help categories. It could clarify parameter combinations such as whether tool_name is required for operation='tool_help', but the schema and examples provide enough context for an agent to proceed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond examples that use the operation parameter, and it does not clarify how topic or tool_name interact with specific operations. This matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the help/discovery/hardware-guidance entry point for oscilloscope-mcp, with examples of operations that reinforce its meta-role. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling scope_* tools, but its purpose as a help tool is reasonably distinct from capture/configure/device/measure/trigger.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides examples but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state 'use when you need documentation or operation assistance' or mention any conditions or exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and operation examples.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.